tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC December 7, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PST
his son was fired in the wake of pizza-gate. >> i think that's the appropriate decision for us to move forward, avoid any further distraction. >> plus -- >> now they're keeping actually the numbers over 1100 people. >> a week later trump's job claims aren't holding up amid new concerns about a populist bait and switch. exclusive new data on how damaging fake news was to the election. and the movement to help electors bail on trump. >> the electoral college is here to do exactly what i think i'm doing which is standing up and saying no. >> when "all in" starts right now. >> all right. good evening from new york. at this hour donald trump is hosting his second thank you tour stop in north carolina, a state he won. he is there tonight to introduce general mattis who we believe will be the nominee for secretary of defense. we'll listen for a few minutes and then come back and monitor the rest for news. let's listen in.
>> and i said, what? and they said, we have a big crowd but they won't mind. just because the weather was so terrible. i said, you got to be kidding. so wve been driving for two hours. we landed like a long ways. but there was no way that we weren't showing up tonight. that i can tell you. that i can tell you. we couldt land at your local airport. we landed a long ways away. but i said, let's put it this way, the drive was about three times longer than the flight. but we made it. that's all that matters, right? we made it. and i'm here today for one main reason, to thank you, the people of north carolina, for being so incredible. we want to thank you. you went out and pounded the pavement.
you organize your fellow citizens and propel to victory a grassroots movement the likes of which nobody, nobody has ever seen before. and that's beyond our country. and i want to give a special thank you to the incredible military families, service members and veterans of north carolina. and they were great. you saw what happened with the military. i got ch numbers, oh, those numbers are good. i won't talk about it. we don talk about numbers. we bring people together. but boy, were those numbers good. and our veterans, do we love our veterans? we love our veterans. your state's legacy of service is an inspiration to us all. north carolina's produced many of the finest soldiers, airmen,
sailors and marines the world has ever seen. so true. our men and women in uniform represent the absolute best of us. we must follow their example working in unison toward a shared goal across every social, racial and economic line. they understand that to accomplish the mission we must all be pulling in the same direction. we have to get together. they know that we must leave no man or woman behind. these patriots have shed their blood to defend our country, in distant fieldsf battle across the earth. our debt to them is eternal and everlasting.
amazing people. amazing people. then you know we have a very special person here today who we're going to introduce very shortly. boy, it's been such a popular choice. we salute their sacrifice and we salute the flag they fought to protect. we love our flag, right? we love our flag. we love our flag. and we don't like it when we see people ripping up our flag and burning our flag. we don't like it. we don't like it. we'll see what we're going to do about that, okay? we're going to see. tomorrow is the 75th anniversary of pearl harbor. it's a milestone that marks the ultimate sacrifice of those who wear the great uniform.
it's a reminder of the valiant efforts of america's fighting men and women who have liberated millions from tyranny and a pregs. now today our brave men and women are the first in line defense, defense against radical islamic terrorism. words that some people don't like to say. an ideology of death that slaughters innocent men, women and children. we're going to protect our people, protect our country. believe me. in every generation a new threat to freedom arises. just as we defeated these threats we faced generations in the past and you understand that. so too will we defeat the forces of terrorism. it's unseen in many cases, but we're going to defeat that force and we're going to defeat it
strongly and quickly. we will prevail. we stand here today just miles from ft. bragg, a home of heroes. a home of heroes. our special forces at ft. bragg have been the tip of the spear in fighting terrorism. the motto of our army special forces is to free the oppressed, and that is exactly what they have been doing and will continue to do. at this very moment soldiers from ft. bragg are deployed in 90 countries around the world. can you believe that? 90 countries. basically bragg is the 82nd airborne division. also known as the all-american
division. we stand in awe of their achievements. we really do. not far from here, sits 45% of the entire united states marine corps at camp lejeune. i've been to camp lejeune. we love camp lejeune. 12,000 citizen soldiers fill the ranks of the north carolina army and air national guard. the national guard rushed to the scene to help the victims of hurricane matthew and so many other catastrophes, and we continue to send our thoughts and prayers to those recovering in its wake. the military families in north carolina are a national treasure and will be the duty of my administration to ensure that we protect those who protect us. and i just want to tell you that
we are going to be taking care of our veterans, and i'm right now -- i'm right now working -- these are great, great people. and they haven't been treated fairly. and i'm right now working on picking the people that are going to be helping our veterans, and they are really outstanding. we have some of the great people. a lot of people they're giving, making great sacrifices to do this. but they're going to be unbelieve -- you're going to see such a cnge. you're going to see such a change like you've never seen before. we're going to protect and help our veterans, believe me. that brings me to the second reason that i'm here, to discuss our action plan, to make america great again beginning with the rebuilding of our military and
we will, we will. you're going to see it. i'm so looking for it. probably next week you're going to see what we're going to do to take care of our vets. it's going to be announced. a lot of things will be announced. stay tuned, folks. all men and women in uniform will have the supplies, support, equipment, training, services, medical care and resources they need to get the job done incredibly well and perfectly. you watch. the best care in the world for our veterans both at public and v.a. facilities as well as the right to see a private doctor when the lines are long. i've been saying this for the last year and a half. you know, people are waiting in line for seven days, eight days, nine days.
longer. he just said longer. longer than that. and when that happens, you go out to see a private doctor, a private hospital, a public hospital, somebody that can take care of you, and we're going to pick up the bill. not only is it going to be great for you and life saving in many cases, it's going to be less expensive. i'm saying why didn't they do this in the past? why didn't somebody do this? there is not going to be any more waiting for our great people in line for weeks to see a doctor. and finally a commitment to only engage in use of military forces when it's in the vital national security interests of the united states. we don't want to have a depleted military because we're all over the place fighting in areas that just we shouldn't be fighting in. we're going to have such a
strong, powerful military. it's not going to be depleted any longer. i mentioned equipment previously and i said equipment. we're going to have the finest equipment in the world. it's going to be new. it's going to be modern. it's going to belean. it's going to be the best. that's what we're going to have. we're not going to be a depleted military anymore. from now on, it's going to be america first, america first. we will stop racing to topple foreign -- and you understand this -- foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn't be involved with. instead our focus must be on defeating terrorism and destroying isis. and we will.
any nation that shares these goals will be our partner in this mission. we won't forget it. we want to strengthen all friendships and seek out new friendships rather than a rigid dogma, we're guided by the lessons of history and a desire to promote stability, stability all over and strength in our land. this destructive cycle of intervention and chaos must finally, folks, come to an end. come to an end. we've spent at last count $6 trillion in the middle east and our roads have potholes all over. our highways are falling apart. our bridges are falling. our tuels are no good. our airports are horrible like third world countries. we've got to start spending on ourselves.
but we've got to be so strong militarily like we've never ever been before. >> that's donald trump in north carolina. that's his second stop on his thank you tour/victory tour. tonight he'll be introducing marine general mattis as the secretary of defense. you can see him talking about veterans and foreign policy. we'll monitor that if there's any news made as we go along here. just hours before the president-elect took the stage in north carolina, the current president addressing soldiers at macdill air force base delivered his final security speech. without mentioning trump by name. we'll play you an extended piece of that speech tonight. a recently retired general to lead the defense department has prompted serious concerns since for very important reasons the military is suppose to be under civilian control. indeed, congress would have to ange the law and issue a waiver for mattis to take the job. but he's seen as a potential
moderating force in a trump white house and not recently because he tried to talk trump out of torture. mattis could provide a hugely important counterbalance to another general trump has picked for his team, michael flynn. who trump has tapped as his national security adviser. flynn's son was fired from the trump campaign after tweeting about the pizza-gate conspiracy theory. there doesn't appear to be a lot of daylight between michael flynn and his son. michael flynn is also a fan of spreading fake news. he's reportedly pushed dubious factoids at least 16 times since august 9 recently tweeting you decide, nypd blows whistle on new hillary e-mails money laundering sex crimes with children, again, must read. that is not ue, that's a fake story. he has such a loose relationship with the truth when he ran the defense intelligence agency his subordinates came up with a term
for them calling them flynn-facts. he quoted a book on radical islam earlier this year. >> we are facing another ism just like we faced nazyism and nashism and imperialism and communism. this is islamism. it is a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people on this planet. and it has to be excised. >> flynn would seem to represent some of the worst impulses of trumpism. the very impulses president obama sought to counter in his final national security speech. >> we are fighting terrorists who claim to fight on behalf of islam. but they do not speak for over a billion muslims around the world. and they do not speak for american muslims including many who wear the uniform of the united states of america's military.
if we act like this is a war between the united states and islam, we're not just going to lose more americans to terrorist attacks. but we'll also lose sight of the very principles we claim to defend. so let my final words to you as your commander in chief be a reminder of what it is that you're fighting for, what it is that we are fighting for. the united states of america is not a country that imposes religious tests as a price for freedom. we're a country that was founded so that people could practice their faiths as they choose. we're a nation that believes freedom can never be taken for granted. and that each of us has a responsibility to sustain it. the universal right to speak your mind and to protest against authority. to live in a society that's open and free, that can criticize a
president without retribution. a country where you're judged by the content of your character rather than what you look like or how you worship or what yr last name is or where your family came from. that's what separates us from tyrants and terrorists. remember what that flag stands for. for we depend on you, the heirs to that legacy, our men and women in uniform and the citizens who support you to carry forward what is best in us, that commitment to a common creed, the confidence that right makes might not the other way around.
that's how we can sustain this long struggle. that's how we'll protect this country. that's how we'll protect our constitution against all threats foreign and domestic. i trust that you will fulfill that mission as you have fulfilled all others. >> president obama earlier today retired general james mattis brought to the stage by president-elect donald trump. mattis has been nominated to be the secretary of defense. he thanked everybody and left the stage. this is the first sort of joint cabinet official event that donald trump has done. he's done two of these. he's planning lots more. if the campaign's any indication probably hundreds more over the course of his presidency. joining me now democratic congressman adam schiff from the committee on intelligence. let me start with your thoughts since we just saw retired general mattis there about the choice of mattis.
>> well, i think he's a good choice in the sense that there's a lot to like about this man. he served with great distinction for many years in the armed forces. he's pushed back already against the president-elect on the issue of torture saying it's a bad idea and not effective. i think he will also speak plainly to the president-elect as well as his national security adviser nominee about russia and for many years in the armed forces. he's pushed back already against the president-elect on the issue of torture saying it's a bad idea and not effective. i think he will also speak plainly to the president-elect as well as his national security adviser nominee about russia and how russia is not our friend. i think he will speak strongly about the nato alliance and the need to support our nato allies in particular in the baltics, but elsewhere i think in syria he will push back against working with the russians who don't share our interests. there's a lot to like about this man. there's about breaching this longstanding policy embodied in law that we don't appoint people as secretary of defense unless they've been out of uniform for seven years. seven years is the current law.
there's a recent report that they may try to insert in a must-pass government spending bill a waiver for general mattis. i think that would be a big mistake. >> i saw they may try to put that in the continuing resolution that must pass to keep the government open. a lot of people have been talking about this and i want to talk about flynn. michael flynn's son had a transition.gov e-mail address. he was, according to repts, the transition had sought security clearance for him. he was acting as a chief of staff for his father. and after a gunman shows up at a pizzeria in washington, d.c., based on an entirely false libelous conspiracy theory that there's a child sex ring being run by the clns after this guy shows up with a gun, michael flynn's son chief of staff on the transition team reportedly seeking security clearance says you have to disprove it before we know it's false.
he was let go today. what does that say about michael flynn's judgment? >> caused profound questions about the judgment of the both father and son. both have been involved in the propagation of these fake news stories. there's no question that they're completely fake and false. no question that the earlier tweets about the clintons' involvement in a child sex ring was any more true than the latest by his son and the fact that they would peddle these fake news stories, whether it's during the campaign or after doesn't matter. i mean, it's completely unethical. and you really have to question both the morals and the judgment of people that would be engaged in propounding such ridiculous and absurd conspiracy theories which could have had deadly consequences. >> there's a debate, some back and forth about keith ellison, a congressman from minneapolis, one of your colleagues, claire of the dnc, some writings he's had in the past that some have
said they're uncomfortable with with his thoughts on israel and zionism and things like that. a post from michael flynn that was later deleted in which he retweets someone telling the jews, not today jews, not any more jews, not anymore. here's general flynn retweeting saying not anymore, jews, the corrupt democratic machine will do and say anything to get never hillary into power. this is a new low. can you imagine if that was something that one of your colleagues had retweeted just in the last year? >> i can't imagine it. now, i think in fairness to general flynn, he retracted that, that it was a mistake,e didn't mean to send that tweet. but nonetheless there's a lot of very offensive tweets th he did mean to send, that he hasn't retracted. >> like fear of muslims is racial. is that a legitimate view for the national security adviser of this country to hold?
>> absolutely not. suggesting that all muslims or an entire faith is linked to terror or is somehow anathema or subject to registry, all these terrible bigoted ideas are counterproductive in the fight with terror because they play into the isis narrative that the west is at war with all of islam. it's deeply destructive. imagine trying to work with our muslim allies and get their support when we talk about banning muslims from coming to our country. what do we say to king abdullah of jordan? we'll work with you, but just don't try to come to the united states. >> always a pleasure. >> thanks, chris. >> as donald trump continues his second victory tour, the front end of an elaborate bait and switch. the numbers are not what the president-elect said they were. ohio senator sherrod brown on that and more next.
comcast business offers blazing fast and reliable internet that's over 6 times faster than slow internet from the phone company. say hello to internet speeds up to 250 mbps. and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more a month. call today. comcast business. built for business. donald trump continues to address his victory rally in north carolina. just introduced general mattis as his pick for secretary of defense. but there are new questions about big claims trump made at his carrier event last week in indiana. >> that we're saving the jobs at the carrier plant om going to mexico. 1,100 jobs. and we will work to make america a better environment for workers and businesses. those days are over where those companies are going to leave. >> on his victory/thank you tour, donald trump has been
touting the deal he was facilitating to keep carrier ctory jobs from moving to mexico. an early political win for the president-elect, the deal is extremely popular. according to a new poll, 60% of registered voters say it gave him a more favorable view of trump. but the united steelworkers union that represents those carrier workers, the actual people whose jobs were at stake in the deal, they were not a party to the negotiations and they just found out from the company how many factory jobs are actually being saved. the number is 730, about 300 fewer than trump cited. 350 jobs were never slated to go to mexico. another 70 to 80 were nun union jobs supervisory and secretaries. about 550 of those factory positions are still relocating on top of 700 jobs being lost from a nearby plant owned by the same parent company. so in all, 1250 factory jobs
moving to mexico versus 730 being saved in indiana. chuck jones is the president of the carrier workers union reacted in an article in "the washington post." he got up there and for whatever reason lied his bleep off. they pulled a dog and pony show on the numbers. i almost threw up in my mouth. trump has made a habit of performing a kind of toughness against american corporations most recently going after boeing when he said it was a bloated contract to revamp air force one. he tweeted up a storm about a 25% tariff he wants to impose on companies that export jobs and try to bring products back to the united states. warning them that it would be, quote, a very expensive mistake. he didn't say whether that would apply to carrier for relocating its jobs to mexico. in the republican congress where the agenda is to be implemented, it is not actually in fashion. >> the problem we have largely
speaking is that we tax american businesses at much, much higher tax rates than our foreign competitors tax theirs. therefore, they're winning and we're losing. so we think the real solution here is comprehensive across the board tax reform which is what we're going to be hitting the ground running on in early 2017. >> just this past week congress on the verge of taking an actual real step to protect american workers adding a buy american provision to a water infrastructure bill to require the use of american made iron and steel, something you would think the president-elect would be in favor of. then paul ryan came in and stripped that from the bill. he's following an example from the president-elect who is buying foreign steel for his projects. i want to talk about this buy american provision in the american infrastructure bill. we've got huge nonstop coverage of the carrier deal and i'm very happy for those 730 workers. nobody is shining the light on
this buy american provision in the water infrastructure bill. presumably the president-elect could have stepped in to stop it. >> i'm glad for those workers there. they're 100 miles from ohio. i'm glad for the workers in indiana. not so glad for those that got left out of the deal and they gave money to the company. but fundentally this was the first test of the new republican era, if you will, and president-elect trump, we had strong buy america provisions if you're going to build a water and sewer system, you have to use american iron and steel and aluminum and other product we kw trump didn't do that in his own construction projects but let's wipe the slate clean and give him a chance here. i organized a tweet storm to send tweets to president-elect trump asking him to intervene and push speaker ryan. ryan took the language out. fundamentally if tax dollars are being spent for projects, they ought to be buying american iron
and steel made by american workers. that's sort of fundamental. and trump failed his first test, ryan failed another test in protecting american workers. >> so i just want to be clear here, right? you've got an opportunity for concrete to imbed legislatively in policy a concrete measure by the government, a simple one en the government is doing infrastructure projects it would buy american steel and iron. that would produce jobs r americans. in the same week this carrier thing happened that republicans are all applauding. trump didn't weigh in on it, didn't use any muscle to get this kept in the bill and the republican speaker stripped it out? >> yeah, this was an easy one. this was keeping the language in that the senate had written. we wrote it bipartisanly. good strong language for projects and there are tens of billions spent on these projects around the country. this is thousands and thousands of jobs. the house speaker stripped it
out, trump didn't raise a finger. we figure the best way to communicate with trump, with the president-elect was to tweet him. we did it, a bunch of us did it. we got no answer and he didn't lift a finger. this is really his first test to show whose side he's on and he failed. i wished he hadn't because this is a pretty big deal for a whole lot of steelworkers and in my state and ohio and other places. >> you know, it strikes me today watching this, the tweet he sent at boeing about, you know, accusing them of sort of cost overruns on this contract. the details are a little complicated. it is expensive. unclear how justified it is. but struck me that here's someone who can use twitter to kind of play the role of tough on corporate america. and as long as that's where all the attention is, whatever paul ryan or mitch mcconnell are doing in those two chambers to give away the store for america, it won't rise to the level of
notice. >> the president-elect is pretty good at using twitter to distract people from the really big issues that are happening. he can do a tweet saying that 3 million americans are felons because they were doing -- not doing -- they were voting illegally at the same time as all the trump university settlement was announced. i think that was the same time. he's very good at getting people to pay attention to the relatively little th things he's doing when we see these interest groups sell out american workers and trump doesn't seem to really care when it comes to getting his congressional colleagues and party members on board to fight for american workers. this is the first test, the first example. i hope he cleans his act up and pays for attention to this and puts heat on mcconnell and ryan to do the right thing. we've got this case where the mine workers in ohio -- around the country, more than 12,000 mine workers because of one guy,
mitch mcconnell -- we're trying to get trump involved. he won't get involved. and a whole bunch of thousands of workers, retirees and widows are unfortunately going to face christmas with their health care cut off. >> senator sherrod brown of ohio. thank you very much, appreciate it. >> thanks very much, chris. >> joining me now robert reich, former secretary of labor and the author of "saving capital" and former deputy campaign manager for carly fiorina when she was running for president. i'm interested by the tangle of ideological lines that have been created. a line mike pence said about the free market. the free market has been sorting it out for years now and america is losing. a pullout today asking americans if they agree with that. they agree that americans have been losing. a minority of democrats agree with that. is it now republican and conservative doctrine that the free market has been sorting it out and america is losing because of the free market?
>> i think that that's simplifying a larger point which you did talk about earlier which was the tax system that we have now and that desperately needs reform, main the corporate tax rate which is the highest in the world -- >> but that's not why the outsourcing's happening, right? >> no, it absolutely is. >> no, it just isn't. the taxation may be part of the outsourcing but the trend over 20 or 30 years of moving manufacturing to places where there's cheaper labor is part of a global trend of global trade, right? >> right, and hard to compete with that labor when the taxes here are so high. they are intertwined, of course. >> but notust the taxes that are driving it, right, it's the cheaper labor, the entrance of china into the wto, not changes in the corporate tax rate that led those jobs to china. my question is global trade. let's say you cut the corporate rate and those jobs still left the country. >> i don't think they will, but okay.
>> the republican party, what do you guys think about global trade? do you believe in comparative advantage? do you think that capital should flow to where labor is cheapest or do you think the president should make these countries buck up and stay where they are? >> a fairly simple concept that will be complicated in its very simple implementation. we need to do what's in america's interests, true for trade policy and domestic policy. that's what america stands for -- >> wait. this is fascinating. this is fascinating. i want to be clear here, right? robert, this is a new ideological core for a party that has been extremely favorable to trade deals. it's been a bipartisan consensus, let's be clear, whether it's nafta, cafta, peru, jordan, cambodia, all of those deals which i've covered. this is new all of a sudden that the guiding light should be america's interests. >> well, chris, if you define america's interests as corporate interests, as american
corporations' profitability, that's old republican doctrine. nothing new here except this donald trump gloss that's put over it. this populist worker gloss. if you look beneath the gloss, what you find is the same old republican doctrine and that is tax breaks for corporations, every effort to make corporations more profitable will somehow trickle down to the benefit of america. that's trickledown economics. we've been here before, seen it before. it's just dressed up differently now. >> sara, let me ask you this, when the auto bailout happened, you had republicans saying this was essentially stalinism come to the u.s. sean hannity had a line similar to that, i think he called it communism or the return of ussr. you had folks saying we don't pick winners and losers, that's not the way american capitalism works. if bernie sanders were president-elect and he did to carrier what donald trump did, you cannot look me in the face
and say the republicans would say this is totally cool. >> i think the auto bailout is significantly different from this in a lot of ways that we don't want to get into, managed bankruptcies, $90 billion loan. >> go to the second part. if bernie sanders did the same thing, you're telling me that paul ryan and every republican would say we're so psyched about this deal. >> so psyched. i think that politically governing is about priorities and what donald trump did -- >> that's not an answer to the question. >> you may not like the answer. >> president-elect bernie sanders does the exact same thing, you tell me honestly that you and paul ryan and republicans would say, this is awesome, way to go bernie sanders. >> i think it would depend what solutions he was pointing to in the presidency. he's still president-elect, he does not have the power o the white house. with bernie sanders it would have a zillion other plans that he has once he was government to have the government play this huge role.
what donald trump is signaling if jobs are going to be his priority and american jobs will be his priority and therefore as president-elect he's going to make this deal because he's a negotiator and as presidt look at the tax code and figure ways to incentivize these companies to stay here. >> believe me, there will be a huge corporate tax cut. that's clearly on the agenda. when liberals look at the carrier job and oh, $7 million of corporate welfare, he's only saving 700 jobs, would the shoe be on the other foot? >> what we see in all the instances is republicans using the free market when the free market actually generates higher corporate profits and when the free market doesn't, well, then we don't like the free market. we like corporate welfare. and again this is not particularly new. what's new here is a very interesting dynamic between donald trump playing a kind of straight man to a republican congress that's actually doing
the work of giving the corporations and also wall street exactly what they want. donald trump kind of distracting attention from the typical old republican playbook. and i think that if the media does its job, and i hope the media will do its job over the next six months, four years, whatever it's going to be, it needs to actually look underneath the orchestration that donald trump is using because donald trump is talking out of one side of his face in terms of oh, we're going to protect american jobs but it's really a handful of jobs here. what's really happening here is the gigantic corporate tax cut and repatriated earnings from abroad. going to help united technologies, the parent company. that's the big story. >> i think something interesting that's happened that we've seen is that donald trump won that
primary i think largely because he jettisoned an entire conservative rhetoric about free market. he didn't talk about free markets. he didn't use the word "freedom." i remember reading an interesting analysis of his language. ted cruz loved that word. he kept hammering it. what reagan republicans, the word that -- he basically said like i'm going to save your job, i'm going to open up the mines and there was not really an articulation of, you know, we have to let the market do its work. it basically was a kind of almost status at times agenda of, yeah, i'm going to get in there and pull the levers however they need to be. is that now the view of the republican party en masse? >> i think i disagree with your premise but a more interesting ning to look at is actually the distinction between the rhetoric in the general election between donald trump saying that he was going to fight for american jobs and hillary clinton running an identity politics campaign that
failed in this midwest corridor that we're talking about. to go back to something you said earlier, you're talking about union jobs and not including the nonunion jobs. i don't ow why someone's nonunion jobs doesn't count anymore if they get to keep that. >> but answer the question, answer the question, right? so the question is, is this -- i mean, ted cruz and donald trump had an ideological dispute in the primary. it was very clear. i listened to those two speeches in cleveland. i was sitting there. they don't believe the same thing. both member said that. okay? >> i'm not sure -- >> donald trump won that argument. my question is is that the controlling ideology now, the ideology that says we don't let the market decide, we don't believe in the invisible hand, we believe in the strong hands of donald trump to reach in and move things around so that outcomes the market produces are favorable to the american worker? >> so i don't think that's what donald trump stands for. and so i don't think that's also why he won. i think that if we want to go
back to the primary and why he won, i think that your argument is probably dilt to bear out data wise that he won because of an ideological difference versus all the campaign and dichbs that we both know and can point to. >> you know exactly why hillary clinton lost the midwest. >> because people voted for barack obama twice chose to vote for donald trump? >> it turns out when there's 80,000 votes across four states there's lots of reasons why someone may have lost. thank you for your time tonight. a member of the electoral college just announced he won't file his vote for donald trump. there's a move to get others to follow suit. christopher suprin made his case today in "the new york times." electors of conscious can still o do the right thing for the country. they should unify behind an honorable or qualified man or woman such as governor john kasich of ohio. >> objectively i can look at the
emoluments clause and say, mr. trump, you were making sales calls when you conduct your foreign policy, that's expressly forbidden in the constitution. that's a danger to our republic and the electoral college is here to do exactly what i think i'm doing, which is standing up and saying no. >> as it stands, of the 538 members of the electoral college, that named for the website 538, he's the only republican who says he will not cast his vote for trump. there's a move by democrats to get other electors to follow suit. their primary goal is to persuade at least 37 republicans to not vote for trump and have electors coalesce around a more moderate such as john kasich. but john kasich released a statement saying i am not a candidate for president and ask that electors not vote for me when they gather later this month.
creator of the electors trust project who also ran as a democratic presidential candidate. there are laws in these states, i think 30 states, 29 states, if i'm not mistaken, to bind electors for this very reason, no one gets in there andotes mischief. there are some now talking about breaking that. you say they should do that. aren't you telling them to break the law? >> well, there's a law called the constitution that came first. it's the constitution that creates these electors. they're federal offices. these state laws that purport to restrict what these federal electors can do are just not constitutional. the supreme court has addressed this in a case called ray versus blair. states could not legally compel electors to vote one way or the
other. all they can do is morally compel. so that's what they've done. they said you pledge you were going to vote for one side or the other. and the question now is whether these elect ters believe they have a stronger moral obligation to vote in a different way. >> so two of these people are in colorado. the colorado secretary of state withering statement today basically said instead of honoring the will of the coloradans who voted for them, these two faithless electors seek to conspire with electors from other states to elect a president who did not receive a single vote in november, being john kasich. this is not a noble effort to fight some unjust or unconstitutional law. this is an arrogant attempt to elevate their personal desires over the entire will of the people of colorado. >> in colorado where the lawsuit was filed, to make it clear that these federal electors were free to exercise their judgment. >> you say constitutionally they are free. the state law can say whatever it wants and the constitution supersedes. >> but the question is what's their moral obligation? i think it's hard to say that if
you're an elector and you're pledged to one candidate but you vote for another one because you like that one better, i think that's a moral thing to do. that's your pledge. but if you believe that the emoluments clause is being violated by donald trump, there's a constitutional reason they wouldn't be supportin donald trump. all we're trying to do is give them legal advice. we're giving them an opportunity confidentially to signal that they might be interested in doing this so that they can learn whether there are enough people who are also willing to do this. >> so they can come to you and find out this sort of like go fund me, right? you pledge and only if it gets over the actual amount you have to pick it. >> they won't come to me, but they'll go to a lawyer who is promising confidentiality. >> we are friends. i admire you tremendously. i have to say there's some part of me that looks at what happened in this country and we watch norms unraveling. some norm unraveling before
donald trump. he's the expert at blowing up these norms. you can't do that. sure, you can. this is one of the things that you can't do that. you can say about the intent of the constitution. the states decide how they apportion their electors and then that person becomes president. don't you run the risk at further tugging of what's left of what's binding us all together in this liberal democracy for which we currently inhabit for who knows how long when you start doing something like that? >> the question is when you talk about the norms. one norm is the person who gets the votes becomes president. that happens all times except two times. one was before 200 the other was 1888. it should lead people to say which of the norms should we be embracing? in this context when the electoral college follows the winner take all rules, which are imposed by the states, that's what's creating this gap between
what the people have said and what the electoral college produces. one strong norm is one person, one vote. one person one vote should mean that i should be voting in a way that's upholding the democratic norm. we haven't had examples of this in the past, but this is like a circuit breaker and it doesn't go off. but when it goes off because there's a reason for it to go off, i think we have to look at the reasons for it. what we're seeing from republican electors is deep concern that they're making a fundamental mistake. >> i was pretty amazed to read that in the "times" today. we've already seen one resign. interesting to see if others come forward. >> great to see you. up next, the fake news effect. new scientific data shows a massive majority of people from across the political spectrum believed it when they read headlines like denzel washington endorses donald trump, yes, sure, why not?
there's been a lot of talk lately about fake news and how big its reach is but there's been very little data on the subject. buzzfeed news did something novel partnered and conducted a poll the first large scale survey into the fake news phenomenon. we're bringing this exclusive buzzfeed news survey as the story goes live. most americans who see fake news believe it, new survey says. respondents were shown a random selection of six headlines, three true and three false. 70% of the time they thought
fake headlines were somewhat or very accurate. 80% of real headlines to be accurate. that's just the tip of the iceberg. joining me to flesh out the numbers the editor of buzzfeed news and wrote one of the greatest stories of the campaign cycle about the town in macedonia that produces fake news or a lot of fake news. what did you learn from this survey? >> well, one of the key things we learned is an answer i think to one of the key questions around fake news in the election was when people encounter it, do they actually believe it? and i was surprised by a 75% number of people believing those headlines. the other thing that really stood out to me is we did really split the numbers between people who said they voted for trump and people who said they voted for clinton. surprisingly more than half the people who voted for clinton also believed a lot of these fake headlines. and that was surprising because a lot of the headlines that were fake were actually pro trump or anti-clinton. >> that's what i found fascinating. show that one example.
the fbi agent suspected in hillary e-mail leaks found dead in apparent murder/suicide. if that happened, that would be a very big deal. okay? that was just entirely fake story. we know the person who wrote it who himself voted for clinton and said he just made it up. people believed that when they saw it. >> they did. and you know, to the point about the clinton supporters, one of the things that's been established by research over a long period of time people are likely to believe information that aligns with their interests. you may expect trump supporters to fall for that headline but the fact that clinton supporters also fell for it to the same degree. i wonder what it says about the perceptions of clinton for the people who even voted for her. >> asking this question of what have you seen. there's the qution of what's the extent of this. mark zuckerberg said it's 2% of
content. have you seen this fake article? you get high teens to low 20s per sent which is in the range of awareness have you seen a real article, you know, like the, whatever the sort of controls are, meaning that people are seeing fake articles and real articles at roughly the same rate? >> yeah, the spread between the kind of exsure to the fake news headlines and exposure to the real ones was probably a bit tighter than i would have expected. overall people did believe the real ones to be more accurate. people did see the real ones more. but the fact that the gap is not bigger is a really surprising and disconcerting thing. i mean, fake news is getting out there. people are seeing it. and they are believing it. and those are, i think, some of the key questions people had around this discussion and we've gotten good data on that.
>> what's so key about this is no one is reading the articles. it's literally just headlines that are flowing through the feeds. and what i think is going on here and i'm curious to hear what you think is there's a format to a headline that we've come to associate with someone not making something up. and so i remember when there were these sort of versions of kind of satire sites like daily current that were sort of pioneers in this where they would do a headline. it wasn't satire but it also was not true and you'd believe it because that's a format that i recognize with something that's generally factual and now just being entirely abused. >> 100%. the people who are running the sites that publish 100% fake stuff, they watch what people at real news sites are doing. they pay very close attention to which headlines are trending on facebook and they move towards
that and they invent stories that fit within the realm of things that are going on but have that extra tweet to it and present as real. as you said, people are seeing these headlines go by on a facebook news feed where the real ones and the fake ones in some ways present as the same kind of thing. a lot of the context is taken out of it. that is a factor in people believing them. >> chris solomon has been doing great work on this at buzzfeed. >> thank you. >> before we go, programming announcement. this monday i'm going on the road with senator bernie sanders for a special town hall event in kenosha, wconsin. we'll talk frankly and openly with workers, voters and residents there and see if we can't get a better idea of exactly how donald trump managed to turn that state and that county red, the state for the first time since ronald reagan. that's this monday on a special edition of "all in." the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening, rachel. >> i'm sure that kenosha is very, very psyched. >> kenosha has been a democratic
stronghold. trump won it by not very many votes but for the first time in a while. there's a lot to learn from the folks there about what happened in this election. >> i'm psyched that you're doing that. that will be awesome. well done. thanks to you folks for joining us. forgive me, but the '60s were kind of a lousy time to be alive. and by the '60s i meant the 1660s. particularly if you lived in england at the time. 1665 they had the great plague of london. the next year, 1666, they had the great fire of london. the next year, 1667, the dutch sailed all the way up the river thames and sunk almost the entire british fleet. it was humiliating. they actually took one ship, the flagship, the ship that was named for the king, the royal charles, that one they